Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 10/14/2023 at 9:04 PM, ugarles said:

I found the decision from the appeals court on this. FWIW, it wasn't semen on her thigh, it was probably saliva, which is consistent with her testimony that he started performing oral sex on her when she was asleep. The testimony of everyone in the house attending the party weighs against his protestations of innocence imo. 

https://casetext.com/case/state-v-holm-1

Ok...that's my mistake. Was there seminal fluid found or not? I thought there was. I'm not sure what you mean by "weighs against his protestations of innocence," though. Are you saying you're giving both equal weight or that there were so many people in the House that night that heard her and supported at least the sequence of events in the allegation, that it outweighs his?

Posted
On 10/14/2023 at 9:42 PM, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

I'm reading it now.   If he's innocent, what a horrible shame.   Something like this could happen to anybody, male or female.   It's wise to be precautious, is it not?

Meanwhile, there are those who wonder how what he allegedly did, if he did it, is worth over 2,500 days in jail plus hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to pay for his housing, etc. in jail.  In contrast, folks get punched and the culprit doesn't even serve time.   There's a fairly new post in The Zoo about the impunity.   

...who the fck is wondering that? IF he did it, is it worth prosecuting and putting him in jail? Oh...and those precious tax dollars...that would get spent either way.


You're actually a guy who is equating a sexual assault with a punch in the face somehow and...if punching someone in the face doesn't get you jail time, well...then neither should rape or sexual assault, right! Boys will be Boys!

 

There's a reasonable balance we're trying to find between condemning and punishing people for allegations of sexual assault and what the fallout SHOULD be vs what it has been while the facts slowly come out(Trevor Bauer, Quintez Cephus, etc...) but you're not even doing that. You're just saying, 'eh, even if it did happen, is it really a big deal?

 

 

  • Fire 2
Posted (edited)

2,500 days is a lot, as Jordan Holm can confirm.   More than you've served in prison, presumably.  And yet you're saying tax dollars would get spent regardless so why not make the potentially innocent help enrich the prison industrial complex since they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and the accusations stuck.  

   This woman was far more harmful than former wrestler Jordan Holm allegedly was, and yet she only served less than half the time he was forced to:

https://sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/why-did-annie-dookhan-lie/

Why the double-standard against the male gender?   

Hey, you know what?  Here's your chance to score more henpecked points.   "Oh she was so traumatized whereas Annie Dookhan's victims weren't really that harmed (oh?), nor were the taxpayers that were harmed by her (oh?)."     Have at it.    

Edited by TitleIX is ripe for reform
Posted
14 minutes ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

2,500 days is a lot, as Jordan Holm can confirm.   More than you've served in prison, presumably.  And yet you're saying tax dollars would get spent regardless so why not make the potentially innocent help enrich the prison industrial complex since they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and the accusations stuck.  

Yes...that's exactly what I'm saying. To the guy who mourns NOT the 22 year old girl who died Yeardley Love, but rather not making use of his killer in society(because he was so clearly a boon to society when he was part of it).

I'll be more literal and clear as you seem both ignorant and stoopid. 

 

39 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Meanwhile, there are those who wonder how what he allegedly did, if he did it, is worth over 2,500 days in jail plus hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to pay for his housing, etc. in jail.  In contrast, folks get punched and the culprit doesn't even serve time. 

This is what I was responding to. 

Who are the "those," of us? Seems like it's just you who thinks EVEN if he's guilty, it's a shame to spend that money to put them in prison.


I also saw a post you made complaining you can't rape your wife any longer. What other grievances do you have?

46% of rape accusations are false...and because you like Anne Cunter, that's proof you're pro-Women?

 

Honestly, after seeing just what you had to say about an innocent 22 year old women who was beaten to death and your tepid defense of the murderer and...just all of the this nonsense, you're not one side or another...you're on an Island. You're just demented dude. 

27 minutes ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

WOW...here is proof that Jordan Holm shouldnt' be in prison and that it's just such a waste of money to send someone guilty of sexual assault to prison...and that George Huguely is REALLY the victim, and...what else is this meant to prove? The CAPABILITY for women to lie? Something that I don't think one person is disputing. 

 

31 minutes ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

Why the double-standard against the male gender?   

Hey, you know what?  Here's your chance to score more henpecked points

Yeah...I'm looking for "henpecked" point you twit. 

You're absolutely right though...the strongest way to make your point as a rape apologist(and I guess murder apologist) is to...bring up a TOTALLY unrelated case about a women who worked in a lab and committed fraud by blindly believing the Cops.

What point do you think you've made here?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndoh/pr/lab-analyst-sentenced-falsifying-test-results

Here's a case where a man in a lab also faked results...and he didn't get any time in prison. Of course they're wildly different, but that seems to be of no consequence to you, so we'll just say now there's a double standard and Men get lighter sentences. It's about as valid as your rigid scientific findings(or Annie's).

 

I should stop. I should have stopped when you expressed more concern for how longer a murderer is serving in prison than for his victim, a 22 year old women just starting her life and apparently even cited her past in a way to discredit her. When I go for a hike and see shit, I don't stop, poke around in it and see what type of shit it is, so I should have approached you the same.

Posted
53 minutes ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

2,500 days is a lot, as Jordan Holm can confirm.   More than you've served in prison, presumably.  And yet you're saying tax dollars would get spent regardless so why not make the potentially innocent

I take back my description of you as ignorant. You are a moron. Jordan Holm is not potentially innocent. He is guilty.

Since Double Down is taken as a nickname we will have to go with Double Dumb for you.

  • Fire 1

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Posted
1 minute ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

You don't know if Jordan Holm is guilty or not.   He appears to have shown reasonable doubt with his alibi, but the judge conceivably feared the hoards of screamers which might revolt if he didn't earn enough henpecked points by clubbing Jordan with an axe.      

Double Dumb. Going for Infinite Imbecile?

  • Fire 2

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Posted
30 minutes ago, scourge165 said:



Yes...that's exactly what I'm saying. To the guy who mourns NOT the 22 year old girl who died Yeardley Love, but rather not making use of his killer in society(because he was so clearly a boon to society when he was part of it).

Yeah...I'm looking for "henpecked" point you twit. 

 

I've never belittled the loss of Yeardley Love.   Nor do I think she'd deny, if asked, having slept with Huguely's lacrosse rival from UNC and boasting about it to her ex George Huguely (I vaguely recall having read, a decade ago).   She had lots of potential which was lost.  😞   You're wrong to assert that I don't appreciate the amount of societal loss that her untimely (and painful) death represents.      You know it full good & well, but you wanted more henpecked points.    Well you got 'em. 

    As for spousal rape, there are a lot of tempers lost in the marital setting.   That false rape allegations would be among them is a risk of which I took the time to warn folks reading this forum.    You belittled that too.   But at least you acknowledge something that's important:

>>>  The CAPABILITY for women to lie? Something that I don't think one person is disputing. <<<

Men have that capability (to lie) as well.   I therefore urge precaution.   

That said, a good night to you, gnats. 

Hepneckedhoboes.jpg

Posted
9 minutes ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

You don't know if Jordan Holm is guilty or not.   He appears to have shown reasonable doubt with his alibi, but the judge conceivably feared the hoards of screamers which might revolt if he didn't earn enough henpecked points by clubbing Jordan with an axe.      

He was found guilty, nuff said! 

  • Fire 1

.

Posted

Guys. He’s clearly trying to “preach” a very.. questionable viewpoint.. by pretending to have a “discussion”. Stop giving him the attention he wants..

Besides.. if he actually wanted to.. and more importantly was actually doing things to help wrestling… 
 

He wouldn’t be so ignorant of the bureaucracy and financial realities on the ground. 
 

instead he’s spewing his bitterness to women and posting wiki excerpts about colleges. 

Dont give him the attention he’s clearly desperate for 

  • Fire 2
Posted

Actually I've never felt inclined to see any redeeming qualities in Joran Van der Sloot.   Can you believe the nerve of him, offering to give murder details to the grieving mother in exchange for payment?   It's hard to think of anything lower than that.     

But I don't presently understand why he confessed to killing Natalie Holloway.   Maybe to get a lighter sentence?   I guess a murder trial might have gotten underway if he hadn't.   There's not a statute of limitations for murder...   unless one's killed a college wrestling team.  That's happened all too often, with impunity.  😞   At least they won't be able to cling to Title IX as an "excuse" as much as they traditionally have.   Let 'em provide other reasons too, like ODU's athletic director did.   (Lack of other wrestling programs in the sports conference; lack of fans; lack of donors, etc.)    I wish the Monarchs would add a club program though:  http://www.ncwa.net/teams .   Then H.S. Coach Steve Martin could channel wrestlers from the area there and maybe an NCAA program could re-emerge, like Fresno State's did (only with more sound budgetary principles so re-elimination wouldn't be necessary).   

Posted
On 10/17/2023 at 7:22 PM, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

That false rape allegations would be among them is a risk of which I took the time to warn folks reading this forum.    You belittled that too.   But at least you acknowledge something that's important:

No...you piece of shit, I "belittled," you using Anne Coulter's 46% of accusations are false as a "source." That you even would use Anne Coulter is incredibly telling. 

On 10/17/2023 at 7:22 PM, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

Nor do I think she'd deny, if asked, having slept with Huguely's lacrosse rival from UNC and boasting about it to her ex George Huguely (I vaguely recall having read, a decade ago). 

How the ***duck duck goose** would you POSSIBLY even find a way to make that relevant? And you didn't bring up a nickname she had in HS or something else equally...ridiculous?

 

On 10/17/2023 at 7:22 PM, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

I therefore urge precaution. 

If only you'd learned that from your Mother, maybe you'd have ended up on her lower back or in a piece of latex and we'd not have had to have come across you. 

On 10/18/2023 at 12:43 PM, Formally140 said:

Guys. He’s clearly trying to “preach” a very.. questionable viewpoint.. by pretending to have a “discussion”. Stop giving him the attention he wants..

I have no questions. He's pretty much answered any question I have about his character. 

On 10/18/2023 at 12:43 PM, Formally140 said:

Dont give him the attention he’s clearly desperate for 

I was genuinely hoping this was an act or...maybe he was part of the Jordan Holm cult...but it's obviously MUCH worse than that. 

But yeah, I'll throw him on the ignore user list. 

 

 

Posted
On 10/20/2023 at 2:23 AM, scourge165 said:

 

I was genuinely hoping this was an act or...maybe he was part of the Jordan Holm cult.

 

 

There's a Jordan Holm cult?!?!

Posted (edited)
On 10/17/2023 at 6:40 PM, scourge165 said:

Ok...that's my mistake. Was there seminal fluid found or not? I thought there was. I'm not sure what you mean by "weighs against his protestations of innocence," though. Are you saying you're giving both equal weight or that there were so many people in the House that night that heard her and supported at least the sequence of events in the allegation, that it outweighs his?

the latter, in bold. the people at the party back her version of events, which means it isn't a he said/she said situation, it is he said/they said. his story for trial was different than his story the night of and her story was the same throughout and backed up by the other people at the party.

it is my understanding that there was no seminal fluid. the question was whether it was his saliva or if she somehow accidentally transferred his DNA to her thigh some other way like by incidental contact from touching his hair to push him off (or on, as their story goes) and then her own body. the defense was a combination of the latter theory and dog-that-didn't-bark speculation that there should have been *more* DNA than what they found if he was guilty. just the facts. i report, you decide.

Edited by ugarles
ambiguity and some typos
  • Fire 1
Posted (edited)

I don't know Jordan Holm, or particularly follow his case.   That said, regarding:

>>>the people at the party back her version of events, which means it isn't a he said/she said situation, it is he said/they said. his story for trial was different than his story the night of and her story was the same throughout and backed up by the other people at the party.<<<

Perhaps his story for trial offered more details, to clarify some matters?  Meanwhile, what significant contradictions exist between Jordan Holm's report and those of the "people at the party"?   I don't recall the actual existence of significant ones, but I've not read the appellate denial in at least 10 days.   It's a nauseating fact scenario on so many levels.   

     The main lesson to be learned from Jordan Holm's disastrous experience is that we should all be careful out there.   What could seem like an innocent nap (by invitation) upstairs could be misconstrued (or accurately reported, as the case may be) as something much more eventful.    Get a motel room instead... but even there, beware potential allegations by others there that you offered to sell them crack or pay them to commit some other crime(s).  Out-of-town visitors might be more targeted by D.A.'s offices seeking to pad their conviction rates in search of funding and re-election.   Meanwhile folks with rough criminal records sometimes jump at the chance to help the local cops convict someone else, in hopes of getting more favorable treatment for their own predicaments.   Life's to be lived, but with precaution.   

    That said, what happened to Jordan Holm is almost nothing compared to the daily torture to which we subject animals for our own culinary preferences.   I've been a vegetarian for half a year now and my athletic performance has improved, as well as my sense of guilt for all I consumed beforehand.   I hope to keep the latter enduringly though, to motivate me to try and help relevant societal improvements emerge.   I've pretty much said my say about Jordan Holm and others similarly situated.   If he was innocent all along, it's tragic.   And it can happen to just about any of us if we're not sufficiently prudent.      


 

Edited by TitleIX is ripe for reform
Posted
5 minutes ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

I don't know Jordan Holm, or particularly follow his case.   That said, regarding:

>>>the people at the party back her version of events, which means it isn't a he said/she said situation, it is he said/they said. his story for trial was different than his story the night of and her story was the same throughout and backed up by the other people at the party.<<<

Perhaps his story for trial offered more details, to clarify some matters?  Meanwhile, what significant contradictions exist between Jordan Holm's report and those of the "people at the party"?   I don't recall the actual existence of significant ones, but I've not read the appellate denial in at least 10 days.   It's a nauseating fact scenario on so many levels.   

     The main lesson to be learned from Jordan Holm's disastrous experience is that we should all be careful out there.   What could seem like an innocent nap (by invitation) upstairs could be misconstrued (or accurately reported, as the case may be) as something much more eventful.    Get a motel room instead... but even there, beware potential allegations by others there that you offered to sell them crack or pay them to commit some other crime(s).  Out-of-town visitors might be more targeted by D.A.'s offices seeking to pad their conviction rates in search of funding and re-election.   Meanwhile folks with rough criminal records sometimes jump at the chance to help the local cops convict someone else, in hopes of getting more favorable treatment for their own predicaments.   Life's to be lived, but with precaution.   

    That said, what happened to Jordan Holm is almost nothing compared to the daily torture to which we subject animals for our own culinary preferences.   I've been a vegetarian for half a year now and my athletic performance has improved, as well as my sense of guilt for all I consumed beforehand.   I hope to keep the latter enduringly though, to motivate me to try and help relevant societal improvements emerge.   I've pretty much said my say about Jordan Holm and others similarly situated.   If he was innocent all along, it's tragic.   And it can happy to just about any of us if we're not sufficiently prudent.      


 

Perhaps you should leave this topic. 

It is simply surprising someone that clamors about age of consent on other forums defends rapists. 

You are not a lawyer, nor a judge so your fantasy scenarios here are purely made up in your own fantasy world. 

 

  • Fire 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...